Time for change? An economic evaluation of integrated cervical screening and HPV immunization programs in Canada

Many jurisdictions have implemented universal human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization programs in preadolescent females. However, the cost-effectiveness of modified cervical screening guidelines and/or catch-up immunization in older females in Canada has not been evaluated. We conducted a cost-utility analysis of screening and immunization with the bivalent vaccine for the Canadian setting from the Ministry of Health perspective. We used a dynamic model to capture herd immunity and included cross-protection against strains not included in the vaccine. We found that adding catch-up immunization to the current program would be cost-effective, and that combining catch-up immunization with delaying the age at which screening is first initiated could result in cost savings and net health gains.     

Is screening for pancreatic cancer in high-risk groups cost-effective? – Experience from a Danish national screening program

ObjectivePancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide, symptoms are few and diffuse, and when the diagnosis has been made only 10–15% would benefit from resection. Surgery is the only potentially curable treatment for pancreatic cancer, and the prognosis seems to improve with early detection. A hereditary component has been identified in 1–10% of the PC cases. To comply with this, screening for PC in high-risk groups with a genetic disposition for PC has been recommended in research settings.DesignBetween January 2006 and February 2014 31 patients with Hereditary pancreatitis or with a disposition of HP and 40 first-degree relatives of patients with Familial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) were screened for development of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with yearly endoscopic ultrasound. The cost-effectiveness of screening in comparison with no-screening was assessed by the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER).ResultsBy screening the FPC group we identified 2 patients with PDAC who were treated by total pancreatectomy. One patient is still alive, while the other died after 7 months due to cardiac surgery complications. Stratified analysis of patients with HP and FPC provided ICERs of 47,156 US$ vs. 35,493 US$ per life-year and 58,647 US$ vs. 47,867 US$ per QALY. Including only PDAC related death changed the ICER to 31,722 US$ per life-year and 42,128 US$ per QALY. The ICER for patients with FPC was estimated at 28,834 US$ per life-year and 38,785 US$ per QALY.ConclusionsWith a threshold value of 50,000 US$ per QALY this screening program appears to constitute a cost-effective intervention although screening of HP patients appears to be less cost-effective than FPC patients.     

The performance and publication of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery: Making our specialty relevant

Increased spending and reduced funding for health care is forcing decision makers to prioritize procedures and redistribute funds. Decision making is based on reliable data regarding the costs and benefits of medical and surgical procedures; such a study design is known as an economic evaluation. The onus is on the plastic surgery community to produce high-quality economic evaluations that support the cost effectiveness of the procedures that are performed. The present review focuses on the cost-utility analysis and its role in deciding whether a novel technique/procedure/technology should be accepted over one that is prevalent. Additionally, the five steps in undertaking a cost-utility (effectiveness) analysis are outlined.     

Outcomes research and cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology

The decision to implement a new medical technology requires that if not only increases survival or quality of life, but that it is also economically sound. The unique feature in the assessment of diagnostic tests is that the results of such tests are intermediate outcomes. Both randomized controlled clinical trials and decision analysis have an important role to play in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Important points to consider when performing a cost-effectiveness study are what perspective to take; comparing the technology with the next best strategy; including both effectiveness and costs; the distinction between describing and valuing the quality of life; intangibles such as the value of information; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Adjunct appointments: University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands and Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Correspondence to: M. G. M. Hunink     

肾替代治疗初期的成本-效用分析

目的通过分析比较血液透析、腹膜透析和肾移植3种替代治疗早期的成本-效用,对肾替代治疗进行卫生经济学评价,为临床医生和病人选择肾替代治疗方案提供参考. 方法对2003年1月至2003年12月6所医院196例(肾移植63例,血透组82例,腹透组5例)行肾替代治疗的终末期肾病病人进行前瞻性研究,随访3个月.采用WHOQOL-BRIEF量表简表调查终末期肾病病人健康相关生存质量(HRQOL),从而获得各期的效用性,成本来源于医院财务部门和问卷调查. 结果头三个月,经肾替代治疗后,肾移植组效用为0.5399±0.013,血透组0.4508±0.014,CAPD组0.5122±0.099.肾移植组的直接成本明显高于血透组和腹透组.经成本-效用分析,腹透组每获得1个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本(cost-utility ratio, CUR)低于血透组和肾移植组,肾移植组每个QALY的成本又低于血透组.增量成本-效用分析结果显示,腹透组最经济,以血透组为对照,肾移植组追加成本高于腹透组.敏感性分析显示,随着ΔQALY在95%可信区间内变化,腹透组优于肾移植组,而肾移植组与血透组和腹透组与血透组的成本-效用孰优孰劣随ΔQALY变化而波动.结论肾替代治疗初期腹透组的成本-效用优于肾移植组;肾移植组与血透组及腹透组与血透组在治疗初期的成本-效用孰优孰劣尚不能得出肯定结论.     

Cost-utility of collaborative nurse-led self-management support for primary care patients with anxiety,depressive or somatic symptoms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial (the SMADS trial)

BackgroundAnxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders are highly prevalent and cause a huge economic burden. A nurse-led collaborative care intervention has been set up in order to improve self-management of patients with these mental disorders in primary care in Hamburg, Germany. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-utility of this nurse-led intervention from the health care payer perspective.MethodsThis analysis was part of a 12-month cluster-randomized controlled trial aiming to increase perceived self-efficacy of primary care patients with anxiety, depressive or somatic symptoms by collaborative nurse-led self-management support compared with routine care. A cost-effectiveness analysis using quality-adjusted life years was performed. Net-monetary benefit regressions adjusted for baseline differences for different willingness-to-pay thresholds were conducted and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed.ResultsIn total, n = 325 patients (intervention group: n = 134; control group: n = 191) with a mean age of 40 from 20 primary care practices were included in the analysis. The adjusted differences in quality-adjusted life years and mean total costs between intervention group and control group were +0.02 and +€1145, respectively. Neither of the two differences was statistically significant. The probability for cost-effectiveness of the complex nurse-led intervention was 49% for a willingness-to-pay of €50,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. The probability for cost-effectiveness did not exceed 65%, independent of the willingness-to-pay.ConclusionThe complex nurse-led intervention promoting self-management for primary care patients with anxiety, depressive or somatic symptoms did not prove to be cost-effective relative to routine care from a health care payer perspective.